Hi,
Some suggestions to maximise ease of use and provide a clear statement of
the options - to encourage more people to validate their mark-up, even those
who already think they are good at HTML / XHTML!
Some of my suggestions assume that the unpublished "direct input" option
(http://validator.w3.org/fragment-upload.html) will be released fairly soon.
It's the only way to validate dynamically-generated pages BEFORE they are
published.
I like the way your HTML / XHTML validator has the "upload" and "URL"
options on the same page. In the HTML / XHTML validator, could you:
* add the "direct" option on the same page (http://validator.w3.org/).
* add a mini-menu above all of the forms, e.g.
You can validate your HTML by:
. entering a URL [link to URL form]
. uploading a fine from you computer
[link to upload form]
. entering HTML directly
[link to direct form]
Entering HTML directly is most useful
for checking dynamically-generated HTML
Your CSS validator (http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/) has a similar
layout.
I think that by maximising ease of use and providing a clear statement of
the options you will encourage more people to validate their mark-up - even
those who already think they are good at HTML / XHTML!
I think the top-of-page message should use normal font. On most computer
screens italics harder to read because the dot-pitch makes them look fuzzy.
Some thoughts about the introductory text (less important than the previous
suggestions):
* It could be a little snappier, e.g. "The W3C Mark-up Validation Service
checks documents like HTML and XHTML for conformance to W3C Recommendations
and other standards - and it's free." (I'd delete "Welcome .." because it's
does nothing for the user, rather like the infamous "click here".)
* It contains some rather vague phrases (still present in my suggestion
above), which might put newcomers off:
- "documents like HTML and XHTML". Can you list all the supported
languages?
- "W3C Recommendations and other standards." Which other standards? Why are
they important? (I've only heard of the W3C Recommendations) [links to "more
information about ..." pages]
* It should sell the benefits, especially to newcomers, e.g.:
- Pages will be laid out correctly on a wider range of software (browsers,
etc.) and hardware (e.g. hand-held devices as well as desktop computers)
[links to pages about user agents and platforms - but avoid the phrase "user
agents and platforms"].
- You need valid mark-up as a base for validating your CSS [link to your
CSS validator].
- If you use Javascript / VBscript, starting with valid mark-up and CSS may
save you a lot of debugging - it's frustrating to spend hours de-bugging a
script and then find that an object is missing or incorrect because of a
mark-up or CSS error.
I'd place the "benefits" section below the "URL / upload / direct" mini-menu
because many users of your service will know this already - the "benefits"
section is for people who are new to at least one of HTML / CSS /
validation. So the order I'd prefer would be:
* "The W3C Mark-up Validation Service checks ..."
* "URL / upload / direct" mini-menu
* Benefits and any other explanations
* Validation forms.
Sorry this message has gone on so long. At first I thought validation was a
pain (it sounds rather like spelling lessons) and only hard experience
taught me the benefits. I'd like to shorten the cycle for others.
Best wishes,
Philip Chalmers
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 15/11/04